It is the Law...Until It is Not!

Can federal regulations make or break the future of higher education? Join us on this episode of Higher Education Renaissance as we unpack the potentially seismic shifts in the legal landscape with Peter Lake. 

Now that the Supreme Court has overturned the Chevron Doctrine, the rules for higher education will be changing now that the cornerstone of federal regulatory power, has been reduced. This episode is your guide to understanding this impactful ruling by the Justices opening the door for more State control of policies and practices. The rising anti-DEI sentiment and the emergence of anti-DEI bureaucracies—whimsically compared to the Ministry of Magic from Harry Potter—could shape the policies governing academic institutions. 

We explore the Supreme Court's expanding influence over regulatory agencies,  and what it signifies now that federal judges can rule on vague or disputed regulatory regulations. The complexities of juggling federal and state regulations are laid bare, revealing the legal and financial tightrope that educational institutions must walk. 

Finally, we gaze into the crystal ball to predict the future—will American universities relocate operations overseas to dodge federal oversight? Could we see a surge of American students pursuing education abroad? Peter Lake brings clarity to these pressing questions, shedding light on the transformative period that higher education is navigating. Don't miss this episode if you want to stay ahead of the curve in understanding the future regulatory landscape of higher education.

Transcript

Peter Lake: 0:00

The whole country's talking about what just a handful of people who were not elected have decided the future will look like. I've told everybody I said 24 is going to be here. That rocks the house.

Narrator: 0:18

From MC1R Studios. This is Higher Education Renaissance with Peter Lake.

Peter Lake: 0:31

Doing good.

Eric Seaborg: 0:33

I'm doing as well as can be expected. How about you?

Peter Lake: 0:36

Oh, Ginge, it's been a crazy summer, crazy.

Eric Seaborg: 0:40

Yeah, I assumed you're in high demand and your phone has just been ringing off the hook.

Peter Lake: 0:45

Yeah, you might have seen. I was featured in a piece by the Chronicle on DEI that came out today.

Eric Seaborg: 0:51

So what was that article all about?

Peter Lake: 0:54

It's Maggie Hicks' piece and it was last week, oh really, yeah. One of the things she's pointing out is that there isn't just anti-DEI legislation, there's now an anti-DEI bureaucracy in some places. You know, we have the functional equivalent of the Ministry of Magic, depending on your perspective. It's Dolores Umbridge or it's a good thing, you know it. Kind of parallels. You know this piece I did on Loper Bright.

Eric Seaborg: 1:18

Yeah, let's start with Loper Bright and give us a little summary for those who were not on the podcast last year when you talked about it.

Peter Lake: 1:26

Well, the case started as a controversy, with fishermen in New Jersey complaining that they were being required by the federal agencies to have fish monitors at a fairly high expense per day to track fish catches.

Eric Seaborg: 1:40

Yeah, at $700 a day that really adds up for a small business, Unaffordable, I suspect.

Peter Lake: 1:51

Yeah, there are indications that the case was supported by interest in addition to the individuals who were aggrieved. And I think that's a subtext of what we're seeing now is strategic litigation to change judicial rulings that are favorable to interest. So we're seeing the court, you know, being bombarded with that kind of dynamic. Not that that's entirely new, but it's getting more visible, I think, to the public.

Eric Seaborg: 2:14

So, besides the inside interest that you talk about, what would be the interest of the public in regards to this case?

Peter Lake: 2:22

I think a lot of people are really focused on what will happen at a federal level. But you know, one of the major implications of low per bright is that we're going to get a lot more state regulation. This just opens the door. The states don't have to follow low per bright. They can do anything they want, as long as it's legal and constitutional. So I think you're going to see a slow but steady proliferation of state legislation in any state that they can, that they're not gridlocked, which tends to be the exact opposite of Congress. As states are lining up red and blue, they actually can't get things done.

Eric Seaborg: 3:02

And so they'll be the ones watch on a case like this over the years because of the impact it could have with federal and state legislation. Am I wrong?

Peter Lake: 3:11

Let's go back to 1984, the year that George Orwell predicted would be an important year. 1984, the year I graduated law school, and I'm emphasizing that because very few lawyers have ever practiced in a pre-Chevron era. Really, yeah, there's no experience for this. Really. I mean, you'd have to go way back in the law firms to folks that are in retirement and post-retirement age to have practicing lawyers that even remember Chevron or pre-Chevron period. This is part of the seismic impact is that the skill set isn't necessarily there to cope with what's about to happen. We're not used to this, and the Chevron Doctrine indicated that we should give courts should give significant deference to federal regulatory interpretation of statutory language, so short statutes that are open to potentially multiple interpretations. The idea deferred to the agency. We started getting indications from the Supreme Court that they were uncomfortable with this.

Eric Seaborg: 4:10

And when did it show up on your radar?

Peter Lake: 4:12

First indication I got was when Judge Starr came to my conference this is 2019. And he stood up and people were throwing rocks at him because he was the Baylor guy in Title IX and all the Clinton stuff and it's a very political moment for my conference. But one of the reasons I brought him is I had a feeling he was going to say what he said. And he said the Supreme Court is going to take up Chevron and overrule it. And of course you know he was very close with Brett Kavanaugh. They worked together. So he made a bold prediction that this was coming and I suspected he was right even before I heard it. But hearing it out of the horse's mouth like that, I thought this is a guy who was on the DC Circuit, which is a big regulatory circuit. He was well known at one time as a regulatory judge and he said it was coming. So I started warning people. You know that Chevron was under attack and in 2022, you get rulings from the Supreme Court that start talking about the major questions doctrine.

Eric Seaborg: 5:10

The major questions. Doctrine that Peter referenced has been utilized in case law designed to ensure the separation of power between the three branches of the federal government. It's applied by the court when a federal regulatory agency steps beyond its authority without gaining the proper approval of Congress A case that Peter refers to that took place in 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia v EPA that the EPA had overstepped their authority when incorporating a gas admission standard without gaining the proper congressional approval.

Peter Lake: 5:54

Which is, you know, frankly still going to be the case, because the Supreme Court will only be able to take major questions.

Eric Seaborg: 6:01

So, Peter, how many cases can the Supreme Court usually review during a session?

Peter Lake: 6:07

In terms of major opinions you're looking at, you know really no more than 80-ish.

Eric Seaborg: 6:12

I know it's rare, but what happens if there's a major disruption to the court, like a resignation or God forbid, a death?

Peter Lake: 6:20

I mean, generally speaking, they've shown the ability to keep up. But you know we did notice that this term a lot of cases were backloaded and in fact we got a July opinion, which is usually everything comes out in June.

Eric Seaborg: 6:35

Yeah, that makes sense.

Peter Lake: 6:36

Yeah, because they go on recess and they try to get out. So one could speculate that the conflict on the bench and the contested nature of these cases is slowing things down.

Eric Seaborg: 6:47

What's a quick example.

Peter Lake: 6:49

Sotomayor read her dissent in the immunity case from the bench, which is not typical. You can tell that maybe they're not all on each other's Christmas card, yeah well, and you read it in the article too, that in ending deference to regulatory agencies and saying that judges are uniquely positioned to read and interpret statutes, so they'll have the final word. You know, the court grabs towards a significant amount of power over the regulatory state in a lot of different dimensions and I'm openly speculating and I think you saw it sort of in the concluding paragraph of that article that you know we went to court and Harvard did and said trust us. The court said no.

Peter Lake: 7:31

I wonder if now the legal field, even the Supreme Court, is in sort of a twin flame moment with higher ed because they're asking us to trust them. We know that institutional trust of the court has fallen to very low levels historically and I don't know what this will do. I wonder where we'll be in terms of Pew Research on the Supreme Court etc. Following this. So the rule of law and the rule by lawyers itself is under as much stress as higher education and other industries will be following Loper Bright. Do we trust judges to do this and other industries will be following low per bright.

Eric Seaborg: 8:07

Do we trust judges to do this? Yeah boy, trust is something that's really hard to come by when it concerns the federal government these days.

Peter Lake: 8:12

I'll tell you what Santa's workshop is going to be busy Ging. That's hard work, lifting every regulatory challenge, and I imagine there will be a flood of cases that will come in, to the extent there are lawyers to litigate them challenging regulations of all types, not just higher ed related. God bless the lower federal judiciary.

Eric Seaborg: 8:32

So this would be a great time, if you don't mind, Peter, outlining how the court systems actually work, how they're structured.

Peter Lake: 8:40

It's very complicated. There are a lot of nuances In the federal system. Your cases typically originate with a federal district judge. Now it could be an administrative law judge, but interestingly, jenji, there was a case that they also decided that's going to kick more cases out of ALJ jurisdiction because of jury trial rights. It was kind of off the radar, but they did that as well. Mostly, the cases are going to head to the federal district courts and the court of review of a federal district court is typically one of the multiple federal circuits.

Eric Seaborg: 9:13

And how many circuits are there actually?

Peter Lake: 9:15

12 regional circuits and then there's the federal circuits of the 13th. They cover multiple states. There is a circuit for federal regulatory law known as DC Circuit, and each of them have their own flavor. If a bunch of cases land in front of a federal district judge, you can bet that only a fraction of those will ever get reviewed at federal appellate level and then from there the smallest number gets winnowed up to the Supreme Court. When you step back and you look at how many cases are likely to be filed and raised with federal regulation, it's inconceivable that most of them will even make it to the circuit level, let alone the Supreme Court.

Peter Lake: 9:53

You're basically asking your local federal district court judge who has jurisdiction. You know, what do you think about what we're supposed to do? And I'm going to throw something else into the mix which most people aren't talking about. You're going to have state regulatory behavior that may conflict with federal judicial precedent or regulatory precedent and that will also have complex management the extent to which preemption occupies. And the one thing that Loper Bright, I think, really just walks past is what the effect of that ruling is on federal preemption. It's going to come up, a state's going to say, well, that statute's vague and open-ended and the regulators are attempting to assert federal authority, so it's up to a federal judge to interpret it. But because it's so vacant, it's not preemptive, it's not a sufficient standard of federal law to tell us we can't do what we have to do or want to do, and so you're going to get that kind of argument written in high legalese. But that's coming.

Eric Seaborg: 10:53

So, if I can simplify this, it sounds like on a state level. This is why it's going to be so impactful for higher ed, similar to, I would guess, the dismantling of the DEI programs occurring in many of the states already.

Peter Lake: 11:11

Yeah, no question about it, because you will have to be able to read judicial opinions, listen to Justice Roberts. You know lawyers read court cases, judges decide statutes, it's. You know, there's kind of a hierarchy. So one wonders how you'd be able to get away with not having more legalized interaction, and I think that is deeply problematic for schools that are already underlawyered and struggling financially to think about how they're going to get the kind of highly skilled technical legal services to interpret what just happened and, more importantly, the opinion letters on how to move forward. Because you know that point about it's the law until it's not also means that you have to have a good sense of what's vulnerable, what might come down the road as you draft a policy or take a stand, you know not what the law is today. But what happens if this gets challenged three years from now in a federal court action? And what are people going to look back and say and this takes high and, frankly, very expensive lawyer skill to be able to predict that. And then you're going to get flatly inconsistent rulings from different jurisdictions. And Jenji, we've already seen this.

Peter Lake: 12:18

The preview was here. It happens, it's been happening with Title IX. You've got some federal circuits that take the position that there's a preventative sexual assault dimension to Title IX enforcement. Other jurisdictions do not Multiple rules of review for Title IX enforcement efforts that are not necessarily coherent or consistent with each other. So it just really matters if you're in the Sixth Circuit or the 11th or the 9th or the 1st, and there's no sense that there'll be a resolution anytime soon. It just leaves you oaring the water paddling around Lake Wobegon, hoping that you'll find shore. You know it's spooky.

Eric Seaborg: 12:59

Does this make the Dear Colleague letter obsolete?

Peter Lake: 13:03

That is a priceless question. I'm so glad you asked it just the way you did, and it shows your acuity for this work. The Dear Colleague process the guidance documents, as opposed to interpretation, have dried up once they started getting weaponized against recipients. So, for example, amy Coby Barrett, seventh Circuit Doe v Purdue, said you know, hey, that letter that went out could potentially have been part of a motivating force to discriminate against men. And I want to just think about that. That, you know, following the guidance of a federal agency could actually set you up for a federal lawsuit. I mean the implications.

Peter Lake: 13:40

So the department caught the wind and they backed off guidance because people were complaining about regulation by guidance, and I think a lot of folks who support Loper Bright think this is also the death of guidance. But technically it's not, because guidance is not a regulation or a statute, it's just thoughts from your regulators. Statement of interpretation, which is interpretation, means we intend to enforce on this basis, guidance is like here's some good ideas. So I'm wondering if we're actually going to return to a type of regulatory conversation that avoids low per bright by not being hard legal rule. In other words, we'll start saying, hey, folks, you know, here's some thoughts that we have that you might want to consider as you go forward. It's not an intention to enforce, it's not an interpretation, it's not a rule, but we know you're wandering, you know, around Lake Wobegon, wondering where the shore is. Here's some guidance. I'd be curious if we might get back to that phase.

Eric Seaborg: 14:42

So it almost sounds like the regulatory agencies going forward will mirror what consultants do for higher education serving as advisors.

Peter Lake: 14:56

Having had a little bit of touch just barely of the free Chevron regulatory state as a lawyer, to some extent that is how regulatory bodies used to operate. They were more a communication with the field, with a lot less weaponization and regulations and a lot more conversations. And I'll even go back and you'll probably chuckle over this. This was a matter in the state of New Jersey. But I was in a deposition with a guy. We asked him about what they did with pollution. And do you have a pollution alarm? Yeah, we do. And I said do you ever use it? Yes, new Jersey department would call us up and say they were coming down to doing an inspection. So they would say hit the pollution alarm to stop polluting, so you pass the regulatory inspection. It's actual, actual testimony changing. I mean I sat there and I'm like well, that's an interesting relationship to have and I can say at a state level you know you see that pretty commonly you know they'd come out and have a conversation.

Eric Seaborg: 15:56

You know I mean it pretty commonly, you know they'd come out and have a conversation. So, without the regulatory rule of law, so to speak, how do you propose institutions will retool their campus cultures on doing business going forward in the future?

Peter Lake: 16:10

You're going to want to trend towards objective metrics. You know the so-called qualification standards for expert witnesses, and I think you're going to see more people and I think they're already out there. But I think more people will gravitate towards. I don't want to be shamelessly self-promoting here, but it does take to really get a meaningful involvement in the case. It takes a lot of experience, a breadth and having been focused on certain areas that you can demonstrate skill in.

Peter Lake: 16:42

I mean, I announced to the world and I think it was a Wall Street Journal article when I was an expert on Title IX. I remember that vividly, as the editor said well, are you an expert? And I'm like, yes, I knew that was the answer they were looking for. I thought, well, I'll claim it. And then an hour later I felt like Napoleon, like I crowned myself emperor. I felt an obligation to earn that as an academic. I wrote a primer and became a Title IX coordinator and I thought if I'm going to claim this space, I have to get into it in a way that I have some what they call an important foundation.

Peter Lake: 17:17

But I mean, I have seen people offer expert opinions and you wonder where it comes from. You know, one thing I do predict is a body in motion tends to stay in motion and when people aren't sure what to do, they just keep plowing ahead. Just, you know, ask the Donner party. You're on the trail, just keep going and it might work out and it might not. But I think when in doubt, a lot of people will just continue to do what they're doing until, excuse me, they know they can, or they're told they can, or they get in trouble for it. They'll be constantly asking attorneys.

Peter Lake: 17:51

You know, what should I be watching out for? Is my cholesterol high? Is my blood pressure high? You know? Am I going to have a stroke? And those are. You know, those kind of future predictions of judicial intervention are always subject to different variables, I think is the best way to put it. Translating that to humans and administrators is extremely difficult because you know, blah blah, blah, loper, bright, blah blah blah regulation. What do I hear? You know, ms Othmar, from the old peanut special, they're going to hear ah you know, I don't, I don't really understand, I don't know what to do.

Eric Seaborg: 18:25

So the path of Title IX as we know it today? Is it going to be like the current position states are taking with DEI programs?

Peter Lake: 18:36

states are taking with DEI programs. As of today, that's exactly what's happening, you know, with the injunctions in several states and you're seeing, you know the people in California are saying, hey, we're going to keep doing, we like this 24 regulatory drop, we're going to do it, we're going to stick to it. And other people are being told don't even go to training on these new regulations, and so the future is a non-consistent nationwide footprint on a lot of major questions. But you're going to get, you know it's going to matter if you're in Massachusetts or Indiana and I think students and administrators and others will see that, as America divides into affinity spaces, people will find their way to their blue and red space and purple, if such a thing exists. But you wonder, is there space for purple space anymore? Everything seems to get divided into the teams somehow.

Eric Seaborg: 19:24

And Peter, what about the governing boards? How do you suspect they're going to play in this new role?

Peter Lake: 19:32

A lot of boards, who are many are business people. They probably cheer the idea of deregulation, but I want to make it crystal clear to people that this is not a deregulatory moment, like if anybody thinks this is, you know, boy the less regulation. Surprise, surprise. It's just a different kind of regulation and I hope people walk away with a big message from the piece I wrote is that there's regulatory energy behind the dam, the mistrust of the industry, and that is going to flow somewhere. So the water is going to back up. And the flood was in the kitchen, now it's going to be in the toilets. You know where does the water flow? And it's, and it is going to back up and flow.

Peter Lake: 20:11

And the other thing is that the customers themselves have gotten very used to a compliance industry. I mean, people expect their pillows to have notes on them, don't remove the tag under penalty of law, and safety caps on aspirin, and they take that same mentality to higher ed. So, oh, the law isn't making you do this anymore. Well, boo-hoo, we do. And so it's becoming a contractual thing as well. That which isn't regulated by a government will begin to be more the focus of contractual disputes and people will be like now wait a minute, you know what is this. So I bet everybody woke up on Monday morning in their first administrative meeting this week and said you know what are?

Peter Lake: 20:50

we going to do about this, what happens next? And I'm going to say that conversation looked different throughout the entire country there's. You know, this is as intense a time as I've ever had. And I think a lot of us who are legally trained are thinking we're packing for a trip but we're not quite sure where the plane is going to land. So I've got a bathing suit and a wool sweater. No, not sure which airport we're going to land in exactly and what this will look like.

Peter Lake: 21:18

And it is fascinating because, you know, theoretically I'm towards the end of my career, you know, in the retirement zone, and yet I don't have any intention to fall away. But you do think, when you're a guy who actually remembers 1984, who's a lawyer, that I don't have 35 or 40 years in front of me. And what will that? How do I use it wisely and what will that look like? And I think I came to one very sobering recognition that Loper Bright's not going anywhere. It's a fixture for practical purposes, because Congress certainly isn't going to move to fix it. And I know a lot of people think well, congress could pass more specific bills. Good luck with that. Congressional legislative drafting isn't going to make a radical shift because the Supreme Court decided look, it'll look more like they always have.

Eric Seaborg: 22:08

Could Congress ever go back and try and change things if it all starts falling apart?

Peter Lake: 22:14

They theoretically could pass a law that overrules Chevron theoretically. In other words, you could get something like the Restoration Act. I see no temperature in Congress for such a thing. And then several of the justices made it clear that they think this is a constitutional issue, in which case, if that's so, that act itself might be unconstitutional. So that would fail.

Peter Lake: 22:38

And then you think, well, will the Supreme Court ever shift its political leanings? And that's got to be generations away. I mean, you never know, but it doesn't seem very likely that we're going to see, you know, the Warren court return. I did think it was fascinating that the court is very aware of the fact that it's it's cracking stare decisis every term in major ways and shaking the ground. And I think it was Justice Gorsuch that actually was keeping score with the Warren court saying you know, we didn't do it as much as they did. And I don't think I've ever seen, you know, like we're less fundamental change people than another group of judges who did this. And it's an interesting way to tally up the rule of laws. You know, we're not as revolutionary as another group.

Eric Seaborg: 23:28

So take this discussion back to the theme of our podcast, which is the renaissance of higher education. Where do you think this evolution will lead us?

Peter Lake: 23:41

I'll tell you what's on my mind, ginge and we'll be talking about this more as we go along is you know, there's a distinct chance that higher education globally will start looking to move locus of energy to other parts of the world.

Peter Lake: 23:55

And, without saying it out loud, a lot of the leading universities, which are basically international geopolitical forces with storefronts in the United States, which are basically international geopolitical forces with storefronts in the United States, are going to think maybe it's time to move major production someplace else and keep the storefront in the United States but build your business out in a location that's beyond the reach of federal management.

Peter Lake: 24:18

And other countries may see this as an opportunity to compete with the United States, because they'll see that this is very disruptive and central command of higher education is a very common phenomenon in other countries. You have the High Commission in Australia, etc. So there's, people aren't going to be stupid, they're going to think well, you know we can move coherently and cohesively towards goals that will now be almost functionally impossible for higher education to do, because what you can do in Idaho won't be what you're able to do in Texas, and you know you're looking at 50 states with different ideas about what higher ed should be. We can offer a coherent national system and possibly a product that's significantly less expensive because we're not funneling a lot of money to legal matters through insurance or paying lawyers or even hiring them. So I expect more international work.

Eric Seaborg: 25:06

So what would be a real good example to highlight what you're speculating about here?

Peter Lake: 25:13

You know, let's say the accreditation system comes under attack and now, basically, a state can turn its colleges into political arms of the state government. That's not the most appealing product for people, even domestically, necessarily, but certainly internationally, because one of the highlights of the American education system had been strategic independence and cost. Who's going to be able to rein in the cost and affordability of higher education if central command can't do it? I mean, I would say if I were sitting in other countries on high commissions, I'd say this is a historic chance over the next 50 years to reposition our country's education system to compete with and possibly overtake the United States.

Peter Lake: 25:56

You and I have talked about this before. Is that I do expect in the 21st century that more American students will emigrate for education than ever in the past, that they're going to start thinking about, you know, mexico and India and other places to get their degrees, and some of it will be driven by cost and people will say you know, hey, why? I go to a school that's torn apart by politics, that's super expensive. That's you, that's singing the state song, which I may not like to sing. I can go someplace and it won't be political, inexpensive and secure.

Eric Seaborg: 26:29

And universally accepted.

Peter Lake: 26:31

Yeah, and then I'll take. You know, there was a case out of Texas Supreme Court. Two graduate students had their degrees overturned after graduation. These are PhD candidates and I'm going to tell you what, if I were a foreign student reading a case like that, just on its face I'm like they're going to take my degree away after I graduate. I paid all this time and money and even though it may be perfectly legitimate, you know, and again, when you read the case, it has its own texture and I'll give it its due. But from a customer point of view, that's like you order a pizza and it gets delivered to your front door and they're like oh no, you can't buy the pizza, we're taking it away and no refund. By the way, can you imagine? It's like people would have a fit. But this is a much bigger commitment than 12 inches of cheese and sauce.

Eric Seaborg: 27:16

So in the closing minutes, what's up next for Title IX?

Peter Lake: 27:20

Well, we're sitting in a moment of high political theater, driven by education and policy to some extent, but much larger forces, and I'm virtually certain that some federal court's going to latch onto Loper Bright and say 2024 regs can't go forward as of August 1st the department may attempt to enforce they could potentially pull federal funding and they may just be tempted to do it Now. Of course it'd be very likely a court would step in and say well, you can't do that, we'll enjoin that rule. But Jinji, even the threat of pulling federal funding. And then it becomes high political drama because now Democrats will be saying well, look at the Supreme Court, it's on an imperial crusade and you know this could be grandstanding on a high level over the particular issues that are around Title IX. The Supreme Court might jump in the middle of it. But of course at this point you know they'd have to hear a case and decide it. You're talking after the election. If they did a full case, I'm sure they could tip their hand in oral argument as early as this fall, but still not really meaningfully during election cycle. I don't think would be likely. And if they and they'll be asked to overturn an injunction, what they do with that could be instructed, but it still doesn't tell you where it's going.

Peter Lake: 28:33

But I think one of the hard things a lot of people are gonna chew on is well, they think, okay, well, the 2020 regulations are enforced then. But then are they vulnerable too? Where on earth do you get a college court system out of 37 words in Title IX? You know, I mean, your previous generations of the Department of Ed had been much more cautious. They told that we had to have grievance procedures, but they weren't terribly specific about that. They said you had to have training, but they weren't terribly specific. But now that you have these, you know decision makers have to be trained on this, and Title IX coordinators. I mean, where does this all come from? And I think even 2020 is vulnerable.

Peter Lake: 29:08

So who knows? You know what to do and I think you know the short answer is what I said before it's the law. Until it's not, what's good education policy? What does the future hold? That's the trickier thing. The world is changing, the country is changing. The foundations of 20th century constitutional law, as I was trained in it for higher education, are shaking to the court seismic. And when I look into a longer future, I see even more changes. You know, I think there's stuff that's rocking hard. You know, I think there's stuff that's rocking hard. Loper Bright starts out with Marbury and Madison, the case where the Supreme Court arrogated to itself the authority to be the final decision maker on matters of constitutional law, and that principle has stood ever since. But it's not entirely clear. The framers intended it that way. It really is true. I mean, this is the ultimate test of the American character and we tend to come through.

Eric Seaborg: 30:03

I'm with you, peter. Thanks so much. I always appreciate your insight and I'm sure our listeners do also Take care, and we'll see you next time.

Peter Lake: 30:13

I'll see you soon. Gingy, Take care.

Narrator: 30:19

Higher Education Renaissance is produced by Eric Seaborg, technical production by MC1R Studios. Artwork by Jinji Productions. We welcome your comments or program recommendations for future episodes at ericseaborg at gmailcom, and thank you for listening.